Experience, Time Investment, and Motivators of Nursing Journal Peer Reviewers

Published on Dec 1, 2008in Journal of Nursing Scholarship2.54
· DOI :10.1111/j.1547-5069.2008.00255.x
Margaret H. Kearney26
Estimated H-index: 26
(UR: University of Rochester),
Judith Gedney Baggs22
Estimated H-index: 22
(OHSU: Oregon Health & Science University)
+ 2 AuthorsMargaret Comerford Freda20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Yeshiva University)
Purpose: To describe nursing journal reviewers' professional backgrounds, reviewing experience, time investment, and perceptions of their role. Design: Exploratory descriptive cross-sectional study. Methods: A 69-question survey containing both fixed-option and open-ended questions and accessed via the World Wide Web was completed by 1,675 nursing journal reviewers who had been invited to participate by editors of 52 nursing journals. Findings: Participants were from 44 countries, with 74% from the US, and 90% were nurses. The majority were doctorally prepared academics who were involved in research. They reported spending an average of 5 hours on each critique and completed an average of 7–8 reviews per year. The most common reason reported for becoming involved was personal contact with an editor. Lack of time because of competing work commitments was the most commonly cited barrier to reviewing and negative aspect of the role. The most common positive aspect was keeping up to date with the field. Conclusions: Nursing journal peer reviewers express rewards and challenges similar to those reported elsewhere for biomedical journal reviewers. Based on these findings, editors might consider new approaches to recruiting and supporting reviewers, and potential reviewers might gain insight into the role. Support of these distinguished scholars in this important role is critical to sustain the quality of scholarship that informs nursing practice, education, and research. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians, researchers, and educators who rely on the quality of the articles published in nursing journals can learn from this survey about the background and experiences of those who protect that quality by providing expert feedback to authors and editors.
  • References (9)
  • Citations (28)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
27 Citations
44 Citations
34 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
#1S. Claiborne Johnston (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 84
#2Daniel H. Lowenstein (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 70
Last. Adam F. Stewart (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 2
view all 7 authors...
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication. However, it is time consuming for reviewers and contributors, and must be balanced with editorial oversight for balance and bias. To test a more efficient method of reviewing manuscripts, we performed a randomized trial comparing traditional peer review for all manuscripts received by the Annals of Neurology with an early screening approach in which six editors rejected a manuscript without external review when the chance of acceptance was ...
13 CitationsSource
#1Erik CoboH-Index: 25
Last. Miquel VilardellH-Index: 3
view all 6 authors...
Background Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. Methodology and Principal Findings Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a...
50 CitationsSource
#1Michael L. Callaham (UCSF: University of California, San Francisco)H-Index: 38
#2John Tercier (Lancaster University)H-Index: 2
Background Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science.
76 CitationsSource
Background: Peer reviewers are usually unpaid and their efforts not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers able to complete timely reviews, resulting in publication delay. Objectives and methods: A survey of peer reviewers from five biomedical journals was conducted to determine why reviewers decline to review and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low agreemen...
78 CitationsSource
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR).MATERIALS AND METHODS. At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for...
48 CitationsSource
34 CitationsSource
#1Linda Snell (McGill University)H-Index: 30
#2John Spencer (Newcastle University)H-Index: 28
Aims To explore the review process from the reviewers' perspective, including perceptions of the time taken to carry out a review, barriers to and facilitators of the review process, benefits of reviewing, opinions about blinded versus transparent reviews, how the process of reviewing might be made easier, and to assess reviewers' experience of, and training in, the peer review process. Subjects Reviewers for Medical Education invited to review over a 5-month period between 1st June and 31st Oct...
43 CitationsSource
#1Frank C. Day (University of Florida Health Science Center)H-Index: 8
#2David L. Schriger (University of Florida Health Science Center)H-Index: 39
Last. Robert L. Wears (University of Florida Health Science Center)H-Index: 48
view all 4 authors...
Abstract Study objective: In 1997, Annals of Emergency Medicine initiated a protocol by which every original research article, in addition to each regular review, was concurrently evaluated by 1 of 2 methodology and statistical reviewers. We characterized and contrasted comments made by the methodology and regular peer reviewers. Methods: After pilot testing, interrater reliability assessment, and revision, we finalized a 99-item taxonomy of reviewer comments organized in 8 categories. Two autho...
23 CitationsSource
#1Edwina A. McConnell (TTUHSC: Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center)H-Index: 5
Purpose: To replicate a 1992–1993 study of the characteristics of English-language nursing journals originating in countries other than the United States and to compare findings. Such information heightens awareness of publishing opportunities globally and enhances dissemination of information throughout the world. Design: Descriptive survey with a questionnaire mailed to 159 editors of nursing and nursing-related journals. Data about the publication year, 1995, were collected from April 1996 th...
11 CitationsSource
Cited By28
#2Pere Godoy (Generalitat of Catalonia)H-Index: 10
Last. Carme Borrell (UPF: Pompeu Fabra University)H-Index: 56
view all 10 authors...
Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent v...
#1Richard B. Primack (BU: Boston University)H-Index: 54
#2Martine Maron (UQ: University of Queensland)H-Index: 29
Last. Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz (University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus)H-Index: 15
view all 3 authors...
To improve the present system of peer review of scientific papers, editors and publishers need to know: Who are the reviewers? How frequently do they decline or accept and complete their reviews? And what factors affect their willingness to accept reviews? We analyzed the peer review process for 1590 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation during the period 2014–2015. Overall, 11,840 review invitations were sent to 6555 different reviewers. 60% of invited reviewers were from...
2 CitationsSource
#1Syavash Nobarany (UBC: University of British Columbia)H-Index: 4
#2Kellogg S. Booth (UBC: University of British Columbia)H-Index: 36
Last. Gary Hsieh (UW: University of Washington)H-Index: 19
view all 3 authors...
Recruiting qualified reviewers, though challenging, is crucial for ensuring a fair and robust scholarly peer review process. We conducted a survey of 307 reviewers of submissions to the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2011 to gain a better understanding of their motivations for reviewing. We found that encouraging high-quality research, giving back to the research community, and finding out about new research were the top general motivations for reviewing. We f...
4 CitationsSource
#1Olgica Nedić (University of Belgrade)H-Index: 13
#2Aleksandar Dekanski (University of Belgrade)H-Index: 16
Number of researchers, journals and articles has significantly increased in the last few years and peer review is still the most reliable instrument to sort out innovative, valuable, scientifically sound information from the pool of submitted results. Editors and publishers join their efforts to improve peer review process and to be able to do so properly, they need "field information" from contributors. Editorial board of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society performed its own survey to f...
3 CitationsSource
#1Jiayun Xu (UofU: University of Utah)H-Index: 5
#2Kyounghae Kim (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 5
Last. Marie T. Nolan Rn (Johns Hopkins University)H-Index: 20
view all 4 authors...
ABSTRACT There is a need for scholars to be prepared as peer reviewers in order to ensure the continual publication of quality science. However, developing the skills to craft a constructive critique can be difficult. In this commentary, we discuss the use of a group peer review mentoring model for PhD students to gain experience in peer review from a faculty member who is experienced in peer review. Central to this model, was the opportunity for each student and faculty mentor to openly discuss...
5 CitationsSource
#1Alberto Un JanH-Index: 2
#2Vilma ContrerasH-Index: 2
This study presents problems related to the peer review of research ar ticles; some problems have been observed by the authors, and other problems have been studied in previous researches. The objective is to identify and classify the problems, and therefore suggest future researches that can be initiated in the field of peer review by authors that continue our research. The process of reviewing research articles has been investigated and modeled in previous published researches. Based on the ex...
#1Melanie Jasper (Swansea University)H-Index: 22
#2Mojtaba Vaismoradi (Swansea University)H-Index: 17
Last. Hannele Turunen (University of Eastern Finland)H-Index: 18
view all 4 authors...
As pressure to publish increases in the academic nursing world, journal submission numbers and rejection rates are soaring. The review process is crucial to journals in publishing high quality, cutting-edge knowledge development, and to authors in preparing their papers to a high quality to enable the nursing world to benefit from developments in knowledge that affect nursing practice and patient outcomes and the development of the discipline. This paper does not intend to contribute to the deba...
7 CitationsSource